🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <540bbr$6ko@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, Debbie O'Leary
<doleary@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> jam81@columbia.edu (Jake Minas) wrote:
> >In article <53tm42$p1l@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, Debbie O'Leary
> 
> >> >Its easy to make snotty comments, but if this is such a "logical leap,"
> >> >surely you can point to the hole in my analogy. 
> >> 
> >> I really thought you would be able to figure it out after you reread the 
> >> posts. Sorry, I'll be more specific. 
> >
> >Oh, great.  Please enlighten me.  I am obviously awed by your
analytical skills.
> 
> Yeah, I guess it *is* easy to make snotty comments, isn't it?

Well, it was only after considerable provocation.  Your first post was
"can you really be that stupid to post that" with absolutely no further
substantiation.  Your second was "I thought you were smart enough to
figure out how stupid you are."  Charming.

> >>  Therefore, I say, it should
> >> >follow that if the vast majority of Americans favor the banning of public
> >> >defecation, said vast majority should be coprophiles.
> >> 
> >> There are many acts that are banned in our country, to now include 
> >> smoking in some restaurants. It doesn't automatically follow that because 
> >> some people find smoking foul, they must be sexually aroused by it.
> >
> >Uhh...that's the point that I was making.  Thanks for agreeing with me,
> >especially after acting like such a brat.  
> 
> I know you are but what am I? What's your problem? Do you hate it that 
> much when people disagree with you? Does it make you feel small and 
> insignificant? You are too easy!

Note, your the one who wanted to start this ad hominem game.  You did a
little more than just "disagree with" me, you did it in a rather insulting
ad hominem manner.  You continue to do it continuously.  I'm supposed to
smile and say "please, sir may I have some more" when you pull that shit? 
I think not.

>   That just because someone
> >favors banning an act, someone does not necessarily find that act sexually
> >arousing.
> 
> Some people find women's breasts sexually exciting. Go figure!
> 
> > 
> No smell to breastfeeding, but if you find 
> >> the sight of breastfeeding gross, then we may need to ask Dr. Freud about 
> >> that one. ;)
> >
> >Again why?  I surely find it a little gross.  Not as gross as defecation
> >but a little yucky.  But definitely as something that I think should not,
> >if it can be avoided, done in public.  Not that I'd necessarily ban it. 
> >Now go psychoanalyze me all you want.  But if you are going to do so, I
> >expect you go into a little more depth than just some cheeky back-handed
> >remarks.
> 
> You couldn't afford me if I went into depth about your many apparent 
> emotional problems.

Again.  Cute.  This is the "stick and run" game of character
assassination.  Make wild accusations in some cheeky manner.  When asked
to substantiate your vile claims, say "I don't have time to explain it to
you."

> If you want "possibilities
> >explored" why don't we discuss your apparent felt need to demonize your
> >opponents? 
> 
> Paranoia

Hey, if you can take cheap shots with little basis in reality, I can too. 
I will say, however, that I am sure that your primary goal is to make your
opponents look bad, rather than have a civilized discussion with them. 
Sure, I can't really tell for sure why you act like a punk.  I can tell,
however, that you are not going to act reasonably, and treat your
opponents with any level of respect.  Which means this is where you and I
part ways, because if you wanna fight, find some other punk to take an
opposing position, and you two can brawl.

> Your turn Jake. But maybe you could lighten up a bit -- this is a 
> "discussion group".

Oh this is even better than your "stick and run" tactic.  Call your
opponent stupid, a pedophile, and a general purpose blemish on society
with no better reason than it makes you feel mighty, and then when that
opponent hits back, time to lighten up.  Sure, I lighten up.  I'm tired of
playing with you, so run along and play with some other brats.

-- 
Jake Minas
Columbia Law School
jam81@columbia.edu